ABSTRACT
The search for evidence-based practices is blind empiricism unless the mechanisms of action of those practices are understood: why and how change might come about. Two paradigms (rehabilitation theories?) stand in contrast in the field of corrections at this point in time. The risk management framework, well tested and dominant, falters in some key respects since ‘changeable’ dynamic risk factors seem not to be that easily ‘changeable’. Desistance theory and research, rich in descriptive analysis of the forces and influences that can underpin offender change, unfortunately lacks any sort of organised practice framework. Developments in motivational theory and practice, also emerging as influential in corrections, are more fully consistent with the desistance paradigm, but to date are being embraced mostly in practice as only methods for stylistically modifying applications of the risk management paradigm. This paper focuses on what a more integrative correctional practice framework might look like that aims to be more broadly evidence-based, paying proper attention to the interplay of factors that seems to assist offenders most in their ongoing and difficult struggles to desist. Though correctional practice should be obviously grounded in evidence, it should also rely on sense and sensitivity: sense in how we incorporate a broad range of evidence into the design and delivery of our services to offenders, and sensitivity in how we go about nudging change gradually but steadily 62rather than forcing and shaping it within time-limited interventions. Sense and sensitivity is needed as well in how we attend simultaneously to offenders' goals and preferences, what they value, what they have experienced, and their emotional, social/interpersonal and self-efficacy/ identity concerns. Practical implications are sketched out for a possible new wave of programme development in the field 1
